If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You can't refute opinions. That's all this is. Just because you disagree and claim to refute what Isay, doesn't make it wrong.

I think that if they value money over anything else, it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is wrong or right, it's just opinion.

Quit trying to fill your ego by winning debates that are really undebatable. There are no facts that we can use to support either side, it's all opinion. So what's there to debate? Nothing

You are right in saying that your opinion in this instance can't really be "wrong," but that isn't to say that one's opinion cannot be superior to another opinion. How we value a given opinion is based on the quality of argument that presents that opinion. If one supports their argument using facts and evidence and another has no such support, it usually indicates that the first argument is superior to the second. Clearly, in this particular situation, there are no real forms of evidence or facts that can be provided which prove one's argument. That does not mean we cannot determine which argument/opinion is superior. By looking at the rationality or logic behind one's argument/opinion, we (the public) can determine which argument is superior.

The thing about an opinion is that it is entirely meaningless within the individual and only establishes its value when it is presented within the public sphere. Once an opinion/argument is presented to the public, the public (in this case being the forum members) can then determine the validity of that opinion/argument.

Now in regards to your original question concerning whether or not athletes are overpaid and greedy, my response would be that we all live within a global liberal order and this order essentially forces those within it to adhere to a world where monetary gain rules all. It doesn't matter if you're a secondary school teacher, doctor, professional athlete, businessman, university professor, lawyer, veterinarian, or a wannabe communist reading some Karl Marx off of a MacBook while sipping on a Starbucks coffee, the almighty dollar rules over you as it defines your interests. Nothing can be accomplished in the modern world without monetary involvement. If your interest is helping starving children in African, you cannot, in any way, fulfill your interest without a source of money.

As one begins to accumulate more money, their interests begin to change and expand. The working-class man may not be interested in the $10 million mansion, but that is because his money situation does not allow for the $10 million mansion to be a conceivable interest. In other words, money, or rather a lack thereof, makes that reality so distanced from the working-class man that it has no real impact on his interests. Give the working-class man $100 million and 99 times out of a hundred his interests will be entirely reshaped by that monetary transformation. For this reason, it becomes very difficult to scrutinize professional athletes for their apparent "greed" and "selfishness" in regards to money as we (the general public) have, in most cases, not been provided with the possibility of garnering immense wealth and, therefore, we do not have the perspective that would grant us the ability to understand the situation.

I feel that the real target of your opinion/argument is the liberal economic order itself; an order which forces its subjects to adhere to a world of monetary rule. It is of my opinion that it is within the nature of people to act in their own best-interest and, as money currently rules over everyone's interests, it is thus acceptable on a human level that people will strive for as much monetary gain as possible.

That's all very diplomatic (well except for the part where you make assumptions about me), however it's still wrong when you say there's no facts to back up what greed is. You yourself said greed is defined as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." and simply accepting a high offer is not conclusive evidence of such a desire. It's merely a common sense and practical approach to accepting a job offer.

It would be quite easy to just say that what everyone says is valid because it's just an opinion, but it's not actually true. If I said all football players were dangerous members of society because they play a physical sport, you could say that I'm very wrong and you'd be right. You can't simply claim something about a group of people and then say "well it's just my opinion, so i'm not wrong."

But there are facts to refute your last claim. You can prove its not true. You cant disprove my opinion. I think when these guys go after a couple extra million when they are already making $15 a year or more, its greedy. You disagee. That doesnt make me wrong like you keep claiming.

As I, and another poster said, there is no evidence or facts to back up our claims. Its all what we believe to be excessive or greedy.

"simply accepting a high offer is not conclusive evidence of such a desire"

Its not conclusive evidence for either side. i tend to believe that it is greedy, you dont. I dont get how you continuously miss that. ITS ALL OPINION. You may belive differently, but that doesnt mean mine is wrong.

What evidence have you used? Oh yeah, none. Neither of us have because there isnt any evidence to use. Its all about our opinion of greed. You arent going to change my mind or anything by acting superior. Truth is, both of what we are saying is opinion, neither better than the other.

I could do what you are doing and act as what you are saying is inferior just as you have because you dont posses any evidence either. There is no evidence. You cant prove whether or not they are greedy. Its all opinion. Do you disagree? Do you think there is evidence to support something that is 100% opinion and up to interpretation?

We both know what greed means. But we disagree on what to consider greedy, or more specifically, excessive desire. Or another definition of greedy rather than greed: Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves

Yes and no some players really worker their *** off and they really respect the fans and the game while others just rely on talent and have little care of what we think or if they win. But we're gonna watch regardless of how much they make

I think this is a really ridiculous statement. Haven't read the rest of the thread, but I guarantee you the players who coast along on talent are few and far between. Very few players at the MLB level are half-assing it, or they never would have made it as far as they have (having to rise up through several divisions of minor league ball). Also, think about all the health risks that players take by using performance enhancing drugs (don't kid yourself, almost everyone is doing it). Not to mention that a lot of these guys can't even have a semblance of a normal life until well into their 30s and spend a ton of time on the road and practicing. It's not like working some office job where you can afford to not give a **** 'cause you probably won't be fired for bad performance anyway. The instant you lose focus, there's someone right behind you, ready to take your job.

I think part of the reason why salaries are so inflated is 'cause a lot of these guys are terrible with money due to the fact that their education took a backseat to their occupation. Just look at how many players go bankrupt after retiring. The numbers are shocking.

We both know what greed means. But we disagree on what to consider greedy, or more specifically, excessive desire. Or another definition of greedy rather than greed: Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves

I cut out the rest of the post because there was nothing to respond to, it was just pointless whining that I won't acknowledge that your claim is an opinion instead of merely an incorrect understanding of the word greedy and your use of it in describing a group of people whom you don't know.

As for this newest definition you've decided to use (since your last one failed you) I'll begin by saying you still can't even find anything to indicate that such a "desire" exists. They're merely accepting the best offer made to them. Second, you say "more than what one needs or deserves". Who are you to say they don't deserve what they make? If you look at the number of tickets sold, advertising dollars brought in, projected extra games won, extra jerseys sold, and other forms of revenue these players may add to an organization, the owners clearly believe they deserve that much and that the owners will at least break even and perhaps even make a profit. Regardless of the potential revenue gains, the owners still feel that these people deserve the money and are willing to give it to them.

Except these players who take these big salaries aren't going where they don't want to play. They hand pick the few teams that they want to play for then let them know they're interested in playing there. The Pirates could have offered Pujols $300 million and he would have said no.

They deserve the money because it's a fair share of the revenue they generate. I hate it when people see a 9 figure contract and say I wish that money could go to teachers or fire fighters. If the player didn't get that contract the money would be in the owners pocket not going to teachers. And these guys pay an incredible amount in taxes so the money actually does trickle down to help pay cops, fire fighters, teachers, etc. So basically what i'm saying is that even though these guys are rich they are being paid by somebody even richer and that trickle down is actually good for the economy.

Better question, do the owners make too much money?

If I own a business and you are employed by me. Say you generate $50 million in revenue a year for my business and I pay you $10 million a year for your services, are you overpaid? Does it matter whether you are creating weapons, computer chips or bottle tops or I am paying you for being the best hop scotch person, if you generate that much money for me, should you be compensated or should I pay you $7.65 per hr since it is only hop scotch even though you generate all that yearly revenue. Believe me if the owners were not making 100s of millions of dollars off these players, the sarlaries would not be that high

According to Forbesí 2012 highest-paid actors, Mission: Impossible star Tom Cruise topped the list with $75 million between May 2011 and May 2012, which make him the highest-paid actor in Hollywood, thanks to the $700 million box office of the latest Mission: Impossible movie.

Cruise is ahead of the two actors who tied for second place on our list: Leonardo DiCaprio and Adam Sandler with $38 million. Twilight stars Lautner Taylor and his Robert Pattinson made the tenth place with earnings of $26.5 million each

'Real' Yankee fans tell the truth about the team whether it is nice or not.

"Well, that kind of puts a damper on even a Yankee win."
-- Yankees announcer Phil Rizzuto after reading a bulletin that Pope Paul VI had died